ao8 
slated that last season they would start, upon an average, 
from two to six partridges in a day, and that killing one in 
three of all birds started was a fair average. This would 
be more particularly true where a large number were 
started. It will be seen that upon this basis two men, hunt- 
ing forty years ago, would start ninety" birds in a single 
day's hunt. These statements will illustrate something 
of the relative conditions between the game of to-day and 
forty years, ago. The testimony also showed that within 
the last fivie years the decrease in game had been particu- 
larly marked, thus proving, that as their numbers are 
constantly growing less, the percentage of their decrease is 
much greater until they are fast approaching the vanish- 
ing point. Nor is this all the testimony. The public 
press is aroused to the necessity of immediate and radical 
action. 
We quote from an editorial which appeared in the Bos- 
ton Evening Transcript of Feb. 6 last. 
"Every one is willing to admit that the decrease of game 
in this State is alarming, the slaughter last season being 
the largest ever known. * * * To stop this and allow 
the game birds of Massachusetts to increase would be to 
give to this State a part of the large revenue which now 
goes to other States from Massachusetts' sportsmen. 
Some adequate protection is demanded, and that at once." 
We also quote from another editorial in the same paper 
of 'Feb. 14 last. "-' ' 
"There is just one way in which the game birds of 
Massachusetts can be protected, and that is by stopping 
their sale in the market at all seasons, close or open. 
* * * No matter how many shoot in the field or covert, 
provided they are not pot-hunters or market-hunters, 
such shooting will not keep, up with the increase of game. 
It is the snarer and the mail who shoots for market and 
gets 75 cents or $1.50 for each ruffed grouse who despoil 
the coverts. Prevent the sale of birds and their occupa- 
tion is gone. Do away with the conditions which put a 
money value on game and whicli make it possible for the 
village loafer to make $5 a day with his gun. Absolute 
prohibition of shooting would work an in jury, only to the 
man who observes the law and to the boys and young 
men who hang around the hotels and bar rooms instead of 
being in the woods and fields at the time of the year when 
such recreation is most helpful," 
. We wish again to quote, this time from a. report of a 
lecture delivered by Frank M. Chapman, in his Lowell 
Institute lecture on "The Relation of Man to Birds." 
This has appeared since the hearing before the com- 
mittee. 
"I believe that the world will see the day when man 
will have outgrown the desire to kill any creature which 
calls_ forth his powers of endurance or skill as a hunter, 
but it will be in the ages to come, and meantime we must 
accept human nature as we find it, and so far as we can, 
control the physical by the moral self. I would draw 
the sharpest line between the true sportsman and the 
market-hunter. The former hunts for the pleasure of 
hunting, the latter for the business of killing. The 
former measures success by the excitement and interest of 
the chase and often returns from a most enjoyable outing 
empty-handed. With the latter, success is measured by 
the number of birds killed or trapped; it is a purely com- 
mercial enterprise. With the true sportsman the bird or 
beast pursued is only a definite object to take him afield. 
He longs for the 'tonic of the marshes,' and without 
the naturalist's deeper interest and insight into nature, 
finds his pleasure in matching his wit against the cunning 
of the wary duck and geese. * * * -j-j^g sportsman's 
interest in game protection is too obvious to require com- 
ment. If an open season of three months results in con- 
tinued decrease of the species, he restricts the time when 
it may be legally killed to two months, or even prohibits 
its killing for a period of years. And in order that he 
may back the game laws with those relating to trespass 
he acquires control of large areas of land by purchase or 
otherwise, and stocks them with game of various kinds, 
for which he furnishes food and shelter. He even hatches 
game birds in incubators and later releases them in his 
coverts. In short, he does everything in. his power to 
make good the loss which his shooting occasions. And if 
our song and non-game birds had protectors who were 
one-half as ardent as are the champions of the game birds, 
we' should not be now hearing stories of their alarming 
decrease. Consider the question from a humane point 
of view, as you choose, the fact remains that the sports- 
man 'is the best bird protector we have to-da3^ He it 
is who fights the market-gunner and pot-hunter; he it is 
who has secured the enactment of laws prohibiting the sale 
of game in close season, and he it is who will eventually-, 
prevent the sale of game at any season, thereby assuring 
us of the. continued existence of our game birds." 
^ Now this is no accident. The fact that our best minds 
see the decrease of bird life with alarm, that they all sound 
the same note of warning, that they all see only one 
proper and efficient remedy, and that remedy the total pro- 
hibition of the sale of birds, shows that we are fasi 
approaching a crisis and that what is to be done must be 
done quickly. 
■ With partridges selling in the market at from $1 to $1.50 
each, what class of our people does the present law favor? 
Certainly it is not the man of moderate means, for he 
could not afford to pay so large a price for so small an 
amount of nourishment. Then the present law discrimi- 
nates in favor of the rich against the poor man, for the 
latter must, himself, go and get the partridge, or go with- 
out — he can't afford to buy it, and is not as likely as the 
man of means to have a friend who will give it to him, 
Then is there any hardship in compelling the man of 
wealth, with plenty of time at his command (and time is 
another advantage in favor of the man of means, for 
few of the laboring men can afford much time even), to 
make the necessary effort, to go and get the bird him^ 
self, or go without? With the partridge as scarce as it is 
to-day, it takes skill and knowledge, that sldll .and knowl- 
edge born of constant practice, to get many of them. 
The laboring man cannot afford the time for this constant 
practice. ■ The man of ■ means can. The market-hunter, 
who is constantly in the woods., has both that skill and 
knowledge, and he uses both to obtain the birds that 
none but men of wealth can afford to buy, so we see that 
the present condition gives to the market-hunter a 
monopoly of the hunting, and to htm who can afford to 
&ay at present prices all oi fe" birds, tltat the market- 
FOREST V AND « STREAM. 
hunter shoots, and the partridge is being exterminated in 
the interest of these two classes. If birds were plenty' 
there might be some sense in this talk of a man having 
the right to exchange a partridge for four pounds of 
steak — if the man could get the bird with which to make 
the exchange— but by far the greater per cent, of the men 
who would make the exchange if they had the bird, can't 
get the bird to exchange. Of what use is it to talk about 
a theory based upon conditions which do not exist? We 
are facing a condition, not a theory. In whose interest 
is this "four pounds of steak" argument offered? Not 
iti the interest of the man of means certainly, but pro- 
fessedly in the interest of his poorer neighbors. But 
cannot this latter class be trusted to decide the matter 
for themselves? We will venture the assertion that there 
is not 10 per cent, of the men who occasionally go into 
the woods but favor the prohibition of sale asked for. 
They all realize, but too clearly and too keenly, the ad- 
vantages that the market-hunter has over them, an advan- 
tagge that is daily increasing. They know the present 
conditions regarding the scarcity of game, for they see 
them, and they see them with alarm, and they see, "also, 
that if the market-hunter is not stopped, and that quickly, 
their one pleasure of hunting is gone, and gone forever. 
Oncfe the partridge is cut 'off he will never return. It is 
for this reason that they would give up the right to sell, 
for they realize as no one can who does not come in con- 
tact wich the actual conditions, that the hour is already 
late, so we say, can't they be trusted to decide for them- 
selves? Or is this show of principle merely a pretense, 
and under covesr a movement in favor of the man who 
sits down — who can afford it — ^to "a small bird and a cold 
bottle" ? 
In all, four men appeared in opposition, but not one 
single laboring man, as that terra is generally used, ap- 
.peared against the law, while scores of them appear in 
its favor. Thi« was somewhat of a surprise, particularly 
in view of the fact that the law was publicly discussed 
through the Worcester county press for weeks before th? 
hearing. The city of Worcester was canvassed, but not 
one single laboring man found who would oppose the 
law. This is all the more remarkable because with the 
thousands who live in that territory and were interested 
in this matter, not one could be found who had not 
become so thoroughly convinced by the logic of actual 
contact with existing conditions that a plausible argument 
could win over to opposing his own interests. Some of 
these laboring men, Avhen business is brisk, have but a 
part of a day in a week for this pleasure. How keenly then 
must they feel the injustice of existing conditions when 
they see the present law against them continued, which 
gives the market-hunter the privilege of scouring the 
woods for five days in the week and also a chance to 
start out upon the morning of the sixth ahead of them 
so that when they start out at noon to enjoy their half- 
holiday they only find that the market-hunter has been 
tliere before them, and that the woods have been cleared. 
If this law is passed the market-hunter is cut off and the 
birds which he takes for five days and one-half ahead of 
them, will be there for them when they start out for their 
only holiday and relief from the cares of a laborous life. 
Is it then any wonder that they favor the new law, and are 
willing, even more, are anxious to give up the "privilege" 
of having the market-hunter take the birds, together with 
the "four pounds of steak" which belongs to them, with 
equal right and even with greater equity, as it was not 
intended that these birds should be used only by a few 
men as a matter of business, to the exclusion of all the 
rest of our citizens ; that is, that they should all be con- 
sumed by the market-hunter for the purpose of "revenue 
only," and the epicure who can afford to pay the prict j 
of "four pounds of steak" for the bird, which is not worth, 
as nourishment, more than the price of one pound. It 
would seem as though this "four pounds of steak" argu- 
ment was a two-edged sword, for if a bird is actually 
worth for consumption as food the price of "four pounds 
of steak," it is quite right that the great bulk of the en- 
tire stock should be sold in the market to those who can 
afford to pay these very large prices, those possessed of 
more or less wealth, and thus the species be extermi- 
nated. And if they are not actually worth the price of 
"four pounds of steak," in fact, are not worth more than 
one pound, what condition of things does it show, what 
does the fact that they bring in the open market four 
times their actual value indicate ? But we can go further, 
for last season they actually sold in open market for six 
times their actual value for consumption as food. Does this 
riot prove beyond the possibility of a doubt that they are 
not only getting, but are, very scarce. 
The present law and the conditions it has made has in 
fact prohibited the sales of these birds to the poor man 
and the man of moderate means, for neither can afford 
to pay* $1.50 for an article of food not worth much, if 
any, rhore than one-sixth of that amount for the purpose 
of consumption as such. There is one law of supply and 
demand applicable here which neither of these classes can 
escape, viz., the supply of money to satisfy the demand 
of the stomach. 
Now if the present conditions in conjunction with exist- 
ing laws work a prohibition of the purchase of these birds 
upon a majority of our citizens (and these two classes 
constitute a majority) is it not time that some law should 
be passed which would place all classes upon an equal 
footing? If the laws and conditions work at present pro- 
hibition for a majority, should not a law be made which 
will make prohibition for all ? In other words, if at present 
the majority must themselves go and get these birds or 
go without thetn, isn't it about, time the minority also 
had to go themselves and get them or go without them? 
Is there any hardship in this proposition? Is there any 
reason w"hy the accident of possessing a larger part of the 
money should give substantially an exclusive right to these 
birds which the commonwealth intended for all the people? 
Of the sports'man we need not speak here; he is well 
known in this commonwealth as the class which is em- 
braced by ihat term, including some of the best of our 
citizens. He represents the highest type of manhood. 
It is the men which are included in this term who ask for 
.game laws,, and vvho see that they are respected. Indeed 
it is considered.^by iliose who are at all conversant with 
the facts thafafiy' game law to be in any degree effective 
must be favored .by the great body of the sportsmen, that 
without their support and active . co-operatton in its en- 
forcemestt aay Jaw upon £h« subizct would be a • dead 
[Afril 2r, 1900, 
letter. This was the testimony of all the witnesses, par- 
ticularly Chairman Collins and Mr. Brackett, of the State 
Commission, both of whom testified that it was to the 
sportsmen that they looked for aid in furnishing testi- 
mony and in furnishing money to enforce the law and 
secure its observance. Even a few wardens paid by the 
State could not cover the territory and penetrate to 
every part of the State as does the sportsmen who have 
every means of knowledge, and when they enter upon its 
enforcement the poacher finds that he plies a dangerous 
trade. The enforcement of any law yet has its difficulties 
even with this large body of citizens behind it, as was 
shown by the testimony of Mr. Wood, of Pittsfield, who 
produced at the hearing upon this bill (to illustrate this 
difficulty) a net over 10 feet long which was taken from 
parties who were trying to catch trout with its aid, the 
net being set in a pool in a stream and the stream whipped 
for a long distance to drive the fish into it. This also 
illustrates the effect of a market. Trout are not taken 
in this manner for sport; the takers want them for the 
money value there is in them, and they would destroy them 
by wholesale for that purpose as the market-hunter would 
now exterminate the partridge, even to the last dollar that 
there is to be obtained out of them. 
There is, however, a money value in game which this 
commonwealth should not overlook, and the way to 
realize that value is to preserve the game, and to have it 
increase, so that the large amount of money which is 
every year carried out of this commonwealth to other 
States by sportsmen who go in search of game may be 
retained at home. The State of Maine long ago saw 
this, and for years has been making laws to protect her fish 
and game, so that to-day she has one of the strongest 
codes of laws to be found anywhere, and this has meant 
money to her, last year the amount left in the State by 
sportsmen being more than three millions of dollars. It 
was. jMaine that last year prohibited the sale or even the 
giving away of tht partridge. If this commonwealth was 
alive to its real interests, some of this money (for many of 
our citizens go to Maine) might be retained at home. 
The State of New Hampshire realized last year a round 
$S,ooo,ooo from her transient visitors, including summer 
boarders. No small portion of this is to be attributed to 
the fish and game attractions in that State, which she, like 
Maine, has fostered for years. This phase of the question 
was particularly dwelt upon by Chairman Collins of the 
Fish and Game Commission. 
There is hardly a railroad of any irnportance in this 
country which does not issue a special catalogue to 
sportsmen. This is done to obtain business; they see 
money in it. Can't this commonwealth conduct its affairs, 
with some degree of business .skill ? 
The only remedy, and one which will save these birds, is 
to destroy the market. If you do not do this the market 
will destroy them, as it has been with the buffalo, the 
wild pigeon, the wild turkey and other species too 
numerous to mention. It is the insatiate desire of some 
men to turn everything in sight into money, and to do 
it at once. With the market closed their power for 
harm is gone. 
It is claimed that the decrease of woodcock and 
partridge is to be attributed to natural causes, and not to 
the market. That there are not now as good feeding 
grounds for . the woodcock, because the alder patches, 
where they find their food, are not cut off frequently 
enough, owing to the decrease in demand for small alders, 
that the alders are allowed to grow large, thus shading 
the ground, while formerly when they were cut off, the 
Sim got in, sweetened up the ground, and thus made good 
feeding grounds for the woodcock. Without going any 
deeper into the merits of this claim, let us ask why did the 
woodcock thrive before the foot of man ever entered the 
alder patches for any purpose? Are not the wild birds 
adapted to the natural conditions of the country? Did 
not nature arrange and adapt one to the other in a most 
perfect manner, or can it be claimed that the birds in a 
state of nature must have an artificial habitat all manu- 
factured for them by man in order to thrive? A mere 
statement of the case is a sufficient answer. Regarding 
the partridge, it is claimed that the cutting off of the pine 
woods, which affords them protection in severe weather, 
is the reason that they are so rapidly disappearing. Can 
you take a ten-mile ride over any of our country roads 
without seeing pine woods, sufficient to protect 100 birds, 
where we have one bird to-day to protect? Even if they 
needed pine woods to protect them, it would not require a 
vast tract to protect a few birds. This claim is absurd, but 
we can go further." The evidence showed that partridges 
were comparatively plenty in the vicinity o'f the Blue Hill 
reservation. Upon this reservation no hunting is allowed 
and the birds have increased thereon, and spreading out 
therefrom have caused this increase in the surrounding 
territory, and yet this reservation is not exempt from all 
climatic conditions which apply to other parts of this 
commonwealth. 
Another very important matter should not be lost sight 
of, and that is that the supply of partridges cannot be 
replenished once_ they are exterminated here. They can- 
not be obtained in other States and transported alive for 
the purpose of propagation as quail can; they will not 
live in captivity, nor can "their egg.s be hatched out by 
the domestic hen and a brood raised, so if we do not pre- 
serve those we have the species will be lost to us forever. 
It is suggested that the sale of property should not be 
prohibited, that game is property, and hence the sale of 
game should not be prohibited. This seems plausible, but 
one difficulty with it is that game is not property. It 
belongs to the people — that is, it belongs to the common- 
wealth, which holds it in trust for all the people, and not 
for a few of the people that they may use it as a matter of 
merchandise for their own gain, to the exclusion of others. 
Some men — the market-hunters — are making the killing 
and sale of game a business. He is taking the game that 
belongs to you and to me and converting it into cash, and 
so it is taking your cash and my cash and putting it into 
his own pocket. The law would not allow him to put his 
hand into our pockets and take the cash ©ut. Is there 
any more reason that he should be allowed to take the 
game which does not belong to him, but to us, and turn 
that into cash for his own gain? But you rnay say we 
will let him sell- his birds, bu.t he shall not sell those tli3.t 
belong to others. Such a law, if it could be enforced. 
